Food for thought: The route to food security

Food for thought: The route to food security

Rohit Sinha

Rohit Sinha is a research scholar at the Centre for Politics &
Governance at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. He also
worked as a Legislative Assistant to Mr. Piyush Goyal (Member of
Parliament, Rajya Sabha) in the past.

With less than a year remaining for the UPA-II government, it has
pulled out a surprise trick from its closet. The Food Security Ordinance
was unanimously approved by the Cabinet and was subsequently signed by
the President of India on July 5th, 2013.

A quick glance at the timeline of the controversial legislation will
give one a glimpse of the desperation of the government to introduce
this Bill. The first promise was made by the Central Government in 2009,
followed by the introduction of the bill in 2011. The bill after its
introduction was referred to the Department Related Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution for
examination. The report was presented by the Committee in January 2013.
The recommendations made by the Committee were incorporated and listed
in the legislative business for the budget session of the Parliament.

Repeated attempts by the UPA governments to push for the passage of
the Bill have failed and as per the concerned spokespersons, they were
left with ‘no-choice’ but to go through the Ordinance route.

So what changed?

Food security was one of the major promises made by the UPA
government in their 2009 election manifesto. The Election Commission has
announced September 22, 2013 as the date when the model code of conduct
kicks in time for the state elections. Would it then be wrong to
conclude that the Ordinance route is a deliberate attempt by the UPA to
bypass parliamentary scrutiny for short-term political gain?

The step by the Cabinet raises the inevitable question – has this
route become an instrument to discredit and undermine the Parliament’s
legislative authority? Since 1950, a total of 622 Ordinances have been
promulgated, averaging to about 10 a year. However, deeper insight on
this topic shows that the rate of Ordinance promulgation goes above the
average in a Lok Sabha election year.

One can almost see the duplicity of approach followed by the UPA-II
government. When a large section of the Indian society was galvanized in
support of the Lokpal Bill spearheaded by Anna Hazare, the idea of the
Ordinance route did not seem a plausible idea, yet the Food Security
Bill was significant enough to push for one. The government felt the
need to discuss, negotiate and find common ground on the Lokpal Bill,
but suddenly feels that it could do without the debate when it comes to
food security.

Considering there is significant opposition to various provisions of
the bill, a debate in Parliament on critical aspects needs much more
than lip service. There is merit to the opposition to the provisions of
the Food Security Bill. If the government of the day cannot accommodate
opposing views on contentious issues and strive to work towards a common
ground that is acceptable to all parties, then what good is a
parliamentary democracy?

One of the primary arguments by the government has been that Rs
90,000 crore has already been sanctioned in the Union Budget of 2013-14
for the Food Security Bill. The argument though valid, should not be
lead to the assumption that because the amount has been budgeted, it is
deemed sufficient enough to push for an Ordinance.

According to Article 123 of the Indian Constitution, if at any time
(except when both Houses of Parliament are in session), the President is
satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for
him/her to take immediate action, the President may promulgate an
ordinance as the circumstances appear to him/her to require.

Fiscal discipline has been missing from the agenda of the UPA
governments and markedly the Rs 90,000 crore could be instead used to
narrow the fiscal deficit.

Additionally, the Socio Economic Caste Census (SECC) of 2011, which
would form the data base for identification of households, is yet to be
completed. The government is yet to prescribe guidelines on the manner
in which eligible families are to be identified based on the SECC
database. To be able to fully implement the Ordinance in such a short
period is unrealistic and is bound to create undue administrative
obstacles. State governments of non-Congress allies have been critical
on this front as this exposes them to administrative difficulties and
unwarranted criticisms.

As argued above, one cannot dismiss the fact that it is the election
year. As evidenced by previous governments, the populist agenda usually
overshadows medium- and long-term policy decisions. The reason for this
particular Ordinance raising so many questions is that it would set a
precedent for governments to push for populist-contentious issues
without the scrutiny of the Parliament. It is about time the Ordinance
route was revisited.